Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> James v McCormick [1994] UKEAT 920_92_0512 (5 December 1994)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/920_92_0512.html
Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 920_92_0512, [1994] UKEAT 920_92_512
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MR D A C LAMBERT
MR A D SCOTT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE ON
BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE ON
BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal against the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Cardiff on 5 November 1992. For full reasons notified to the parties on 18 November 1992, the Tribunal unanimously decided that the complaints of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination made by Miss James against Miss McCormick were unfounded and should be dismissed.
Miss James was dissatisfied with the Decision and appealed by a Notice of Appeal dated 29 December 1992 which sets out no less than nine principal grounds of Appeal.
The position is that, at the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal, Miss James was represented by a solicitor from the firm of Leo Abse & Cohen. Miss McCormick acted in person.
The Notice of Appeal was settled by Counsel. There was no Respondent's answer to the Appeal.
By a letter dated 29 July, Leo Abse & Cohen informed the Tribunal that Miss James' Legal Aid Certificate for the Appeal had been discharged and that contact should be made in future with Miss James in person.
On 8 September, a letter was sent by the Tribunal to Miss James at her home address, asking her about dates convenient for the hearing of the Appeal in November or December. She did not reply to that letter. A further letter was sent by the Tribunal on 18 November, giving today 10.30a.m. as the date for the hearing of her Appeal. There was no answer. There has been no communication from Miss James; there has been no submission of any outline argument in support of her Appeal or any request by her that we should deal with her Appeal in her absence. As Miss James is neither present today or represented, we have no option but to dismiss the Appeal for want of prosecution. In those circumstances, the only order we make today is that the Appeal is dismissed.